The President nominates a Supreme Court justice but the Senate APPROVES that justice. In effect - you have to have approval from both parts of that equation. If the Senate doesn't want to approve a candidate or even hold a vote they're doing precisely their job. The approval of the Senate of a nominee isn't just some rubber stamp formality.

That's literally the whole point of "checks and balances". You might as well proclaim that every one of Obama's vetoes was impeding the duly elected legislature. At least you'd be consistent.

3. Why are Trump supporters so nervous of investigations and recounts? It almost seems like they think there's something to hide.

Because we don't trust a Democrat led White House to necessarily report accurate findings from such "investigations". It's like asking why you're afraid when you just paid the mob your protection money. Do you really think they're going to be "protecting" you?

The court is currently sitting on 4-4 split on conservative vs liberal, with 1 vacant spot. Trump will nominate a conservative. Republicans control the senate which means that they will have no problem approving his nomination. That will put the court 5-4 again. If any conservative justices retire during his term, they will be replaced and the same will hold. If any liberals leave, then they will get replaced with conservatives making the split 6-3 or even 7-2.

Basically - the supreme court belongs to the Republicans for at 2 years MINIMUM, with them likely being safe for at least 4. After that period they still have the court until a conservative leaves or dies. If a liberal justice leaves or dies within that 2 to 4 years and they get a 6-3 or better margin that hold could easily continue for decades.

If it's the fault of the manufacturer then sure, sue them. If however it's just a freak accident - and I know this may be a hard pill to swallow - perhaps you sue no one. It sort of saddens me a great deal when new tech is always confronted with "But who do I sue if something goes wrong!?!?!".

Bloodborne isn't exactly a social game if you're looking to play with a group, but most of its gameplay is revolved around timing. Boss fights in the game effectively go through a sequence of attacks - you have to understand the pattern of the boss. One boss may attack in a pattern when he's going to swing 3 times - when you have to dodge his attacks before even thinking about attacking back. Sometimes whether you dodge left, right, or backwards makes a difference (ie, a boss may have 6 telegraphed attack sequences - one one specific one you may need to dodge left for the first two attacks in the sequence and then right for the third).

Some sequences may not even have a counter-attack afterwards - you dodge until he telegraphs a new sequence and then give it a try another time. Sometimes they hit certain phases where their library of attacks or patterns change at a certain health level.

It becomes a game of dodging and counterattacking with extreme precision. While a few of the boss fights I won within 2-3 tries, certain ones took DOZENS of attempts over several days to complete.

I can completely understand if you say that you don't like that type of game - but I can't reasonably comprehend you saying that the reason for you not liking it is due it basically being a movie with no gameplay. Heck the story in those games is so subtle and nearly non-existent that you have to basically watch Youtube videos to even explain what's going on. It's nearly all gameplay and no story.

I think you underestimate the gameplay of the above games. PARTICULARLY Dark Souls or Bloodborne. If you think those are even remotely similar to "mashing the X button a lot" you're very mistaken. They're some of the most challenging AAA titles on the market.

I may be wrong, but I don't think it really is anymore. It came out of the gate with a lower price point due to XB One originally bundling Kinect. After they've ditched that though and MS has gotten XB One's price down below PS4's it seems to be picking up. I remember seeing several articles stating that XB One's outsold PS4 over Black Friday, and it may continue to do so over the rest of the holiday season.

At this point PS4 just has a fairly significant lead overall and any ground Microsoft has gained has been minimal - probably not enough get back into the lead in installed base for the remainder of the lifecycle.

Xbox One does have better price. Other than that there are a precious few exclusive titles but for the most part they're basically the same with most titles being available for both platforms - you can play a game on either and have mostly the same experience.

Honestly any serious gamer can just buy whichever one they feel like at first - for many that's already been PS4 because it INITIALLY had the price advantage, and then play all the cross platform games on that. After a few years when they've both gotten cheaper buy the other system to catch up on the back catalog of exclusives.

So what you're saying is that the PS4 is a powerful console without games?

I think it may just be poorly phrased shock that you'd make such a comment, as for most people the PS4 lineup seems patently superior to Wii-U.

I've got both systems (and XBOne), and though the kids enjoy a few more games on the Wii-U, I'm basically stuck waiting on Zelda Breath of the Wild.

On PS4 I've got Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Witcher 3, Dragon Age 3, Uncharted 4, Until Dawn, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and quite a few more - with more on the way too (Horizon Zero Dawn, The Last of Us 2, etc).

Granted, I'm sure it's subjective and based on what types of games you enjoy, but it's just hard to imagine anyone looking at the current console gen's library and thinking WiiU is the one with the good games.

I've decided to build a giant dome with battery powered artificial "sunlight" as I heard Trump is going to outlaw the sun. I've also added some support braces into my home's roof in case the sky does actually fall, and I've heard a credible rumor that he may in fact be a transgendered succubus.

Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want. Under a Trump presidency - some things will not go the way you want. That $15 minimum wage ain't happening and student loans for useless degrees aren't going to be forgiven. Overall though - things aren't going to change much.

Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.

He thinks finding ways around the law (like not paying taxes) is "smart".

Um, it is. I'd bet virtually every person here takes every deduction they can to reduce their tax burden. I don't know of anyone that voluntarily pays more taxes than they're legally obligated to. Trump simply - like most rich people - can afford to hire accountants good enough to reduce that tax rate more than most of us can. Sometimes down to zero.

I don't fault him or any rich person for that. It's what I'd do myself. The solution to this is to adjust the tax code to try and ELIMINATE the loopholes - not chastise people who legally take advantage of them. I wouldn't elect to office anyone who wasn't taking full advantage of the existing tax code. It means they're bad with money, and I don't see them managing public funds any more wisely than they managed their own.

My point is that so many people looking for a handout have developed these built up visions of how much wealth these people have that they literally say things like just one of them could support a "basic living income" for the entire country.

Yes, rich people have a lot of money. No - even if you took at all it isn't going to be economically feasible to just sit home and not work.